DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/30/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 2/4/26.
Specification
The amendment filed 6/30/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Amendment to [0071] indicating the material of the mesh lining 96 is considered new matter; the amendment was made in response to an examiner note under the objections section of the action 2/4/26 made for compact prosecution purposes, that a material could not be claimed without new matter, and was not an indication that new matter could be introduced; the amendment to [0071] should be canceled
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The specification is further objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Language of the claim amendments is not found in the specification
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van der Sleesen (USPN 5704064), herein Sleesen.
Regarding Claim 19, Sleesen teaches a rear-opening protective gown defining a personal protective equipment garment (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; nevertheless, see Fig. 4, wherein Fig. 4 is the embodiment utilized; although recitations may be directed to a different embodiment, such as Figs. 1-3, it is understood that Fig. 4 having the same numerals and concepts as recited for Figs. 1-3 as applicable would also have the recitations apply to Fig. 4, especially in light of Col. 7 Lines 49-53 "Fig. 4 shows a front view of another embodiment of a garment 400...generally similar to the garment 100 shown in Figs. 1 and 2, and corresponding elements are identified with the same reference designations in Figs. 1, 2, and 4"; as such, see Fig. 1; Col. 6 Lines 27-28 "jacket 100 is equipped with a central zipper 102", wherein rear is relative and merely a matter of perspective; Sleesen teaches a garment with an opening which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being rear-opening, protective, and personal equipment gown, inasmuch as the structure of a gown has been defined), the protective gown comprising:
a central gown body sized to wrap around at least a torso area of a wearer (see Fig. 1; Sleesen teaches a central gown body which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being sized to wrap at least a torso as recited),
the central gown body including a front panel and a back panel (see Figs. 1, 3; Col. 5 Line 30 "Fig. 3 shows a rear view of the jacket of Fig. 1"; Col. 5 Line 26 "Fig. 1 shows a front view", wherein front/back are relative and a matter of perspective),
with the back panel being separated into a right portion and a left portion such that the protective gown opens at the back panel (see Fig. 1),
wherein one of the right portion and left portion includes an overlapping section (wherein zipper teeth overlap one another),
and the other of the right portion and left portion includes a corresponding overlapped section (met by the zipper),
the overlapping section and overlapped section being configured to lay over one another when the protective gown is donned by the wearer and closed (Sleesen teaches the zipper which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the lay over when gown is donned and closed),
a ventilation cape formed by a ventilation opening in the central gown body (see Fig. 1; Col. 6 Lines 31-33 "cover panels or elements 110 are affixed to front panels 106 to adjustably overlie portions of the openings 108"),
the mesh lining being of a more porous and breathable material than the central gown body (see Fig. 2; Col. 6 Lines 64-65 "ventilation elements 210 are fabricated of a relatively non-stretchable air permeable sheet material"; for central gown body-- Col. 7 Lines 1-2 "front panels 106 are constructed of leather or vinyl"; Col. 7 Lines 1-2 "front panels 106 are constructed of leather or vinyl, and ventilation elements 210 are constructed of perforated leather or vinyl"; wherein the material of mesh lining has perforations and therefore is more porous and breathable),
wherein the ventilation opening is formed in the overlapping section of the back panel and the overlapping section includes at least some of the mesh lining arranged underneath the ventilation cape (wherein the overlapping section symmetrical right side of the back panel),
wherein the ventilation cape is secured to the mesh lining (Col. 8 Lines 44-48 "ventilation elements 210 are joined to the inside of the front panels 106 by stitching…or other means")
such that, when the protective gown is worn, the mesh lining allows for air to pass between an interior and an exterior of the gown at the same time that while the ventilation cape provides a barrier covering for the mesh lining to provide splash protection in an area of the ventilation opening (Sleesen teaches the aforementioned mesh lining which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of allowing air to pass as recited and being capable of being a barrier to provide splash protection in the area as recited, and to do so at a same time such as being partially open/closed, which is a capable configuration especially in light of being able to be fully open in Fig. 2 and fully closed in Fig. 1);
a pair of opposing left and right sleeves that cooperate with and extend away from the central gown body for receiving arms of the wearer (see Fig. 1; Col. 6 Line 28 "arms 104"; Sleesen teaches the sleeves/arms which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of receiving wearer arms);
a neck opening defined by the central gown body adjacent a shoulder region of the central gown body located proximate a junction of the left and right sleeves with the central gown body (see Fig. 1); and
a plurality of fastening elements positioned on or proximate to the back panel and configured to permit doffing of the gown (Col. 6 Lines 48-50 "zippers 120…adjustably couple cover panel 110 to front panel 106"; Sleesen teaches the zipper teeth as plurality of fastening elements which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of permitting doffing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 1-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Sleesen (USPN 5704064), herein Sleesen, in view of Fathollahi et al (US Publication 2017/0245567), herein Fathollahi.
Regarding Claim 1, Sleesen teaches a rear-opening protective gown defining a personal protective equipment garment (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; nevertheless, see Fig. 4, wherein Fig. 4 is the embodiment utilized; although recitations may be directed to a different embodiment, such as Figs. 1-3, it is understood that Fig. 4 having the same numerals and concepts as recited for Figs. 1-3 as applicable would also have the recitations apply to Fig. 4, especially in light of Col. 7 Lines 49-53 "Fig. 4 shows a front view of another embodiment of a garment 400...generally similar to the garment 100 shown in Figs. 1 and 2, and corresponding elements are identified with the same reference designations in Figs. 1, 2, and 4"; as such, see Fig. 1; Col. 6 Lines 27-28 "jacket 100 is equipped with a central zipper 102", wherein rear is relative and merely a matter of perspective; Sleesen teaches a garment with an opening which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being rear-opening, protective, and personal equipment gown, inasmuch as the structure of a gown has been defined), the protective gown comprising:
a central gown body sized to wrap around at least a torso area of a wearer (see Fig. 1; Sleesen teaches a central gown body which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being sized to wrap at least a torso as recited),
the central gown body including a front panel and a back panel (see Figs. 1, 3; Col. 5 Line 30 "Fig. 3 shows a rear view of the jacket of Fig. 1"; Col. 5 Line 26 "Fig. 1 shows a front view", wherein front/back are relative and a matter of perspective),
with the back panel being separated into a right portion and a left portion such that the protective gown opens at the back panel (see Fig. 1),
wherein one of the right portion and left portion includes an overlapping section (wherein zipper teeth overlap one another),
and the other of the right portion and left portion includes a corresponding overlapped section (met by the zipper),
the overlapping section and overlapped section being configured to lay over one another when the protective gown is donned by the wearer and closed (Sleesen teaches the zipper which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the lay over when gown is donned and closed),
a ventilation cape formed by a ventilation opening in the central gown body (see Fig. 1; Col. 6 Lines 31-33 "cover panels or elements 110 are affixed to front panels 106 to adjustably overlie portions of the openings 108"),
wherein the ventilation cape is secured to the overlapping section that partially secures the ventilation opening closed and that forms a joint between the ventilation cape and the overlapping section (Col. 6 Lines 39-41 "cover panel 110 is stitched or otherwise permanently affixed to front panel 106 along edge 112"),
such that, when the protective gown is worn, the ventilation opening allows air to pass through at the same time that the ventilation cape provides splash protection (Sleesen teaches the mesh lining which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of allowing air to pass as recited and being capable of being a barrier to provide splash protection in the area as recited, and to do so at a same time such as being partially open/closed, which is a capable configuration especially in light of being able to be fully open in Fig. 2 and fully closed in Fig. 1);
a pair of opposing left and right sleeves that cooperate with and extend away from the central gown body for receiving arms of the wearer (see Fig. 1; Col. 6 Line 28 "arms 104"; Sleesen teaches the sleeves/arms which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of receiving wearer arms);
a neck opening defined by the central gown body adjacent a shoulder region of the central gown body located proximate a junction of the left and right sleeves with the central gown body (see Fig. 1); and
a plurality of fastening elements positioned on or proximate to the back panel and configured to permit doffing of the gown (Col. 6 Lines 48-50 "zippers 120…adjustably couple cover panel 110 to front panel 106"; Sleesen teaches the zipper teeth as plurality of fastening elements which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of permitting doffing).
Sleesen does not explicitly teach that the cape is secured via a bar tack.
However, Sleesen already taught that the cape is secured via stitching, wherein a bar tack is a type of stitching.
Fathollahi teaches bar tack stitching ([0008] "jacket is comprised of a front right panel, a front left panel, and back panel. The panels…may be unitarily formed or bonded together, such as by stitching…and stitched elements may include single or multiple lines of stitching, bar tack stitches for improved strength").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen’s stitching to be bar tack as taught by Fathollahi as a known type of stitching to provide strength ([0008]), especially for various garment panels/elements.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Sleesen further teaches wherein the ventilation cape is located on the right portion of the back panel (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Sleesen teaches wherein the bar tack is positioned at a middle of the ventilation cape (Sleesen teaches stitching at the middle, and therefore the bar tack as provided by Fathollahi).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Sleesen further teaches wherein the central gown body includes a top end and a bottom end opposite the top end (see Fig. 4),
with the neck opening being positioned proximate to the top end (see Fig. 4),
and wherein the ventilation opening is closer to the top end than the bottom end (see Fig. 4, wherein at least a portion of the opening is closer to the top than the bottom).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Sleesen (USPN 5704064), herein Sleesen, in view of Fathollahi et al (US Publication 2017/0245567), herein Fathollahi, as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Park et al (USPN 8256023), herein Park.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Sleesen further teaches wherein the central gown body includes a top end and a bottom end opposite the top end (see Fig. 4),
with the neck opening being positioned proximate to the top end (see Fig. 4).
Sleesen does not explicitly teach and wherein the ventilation opening is oriented to face downwards towards the bottom end (but teaches the opposite).
Park teaches and wherein the ventilation opening is oriented to face downwards towards the bottom end (as another option to the opposite) (see Fig. 3; Col. 2 Lines 54-57 "open protective cover formed extended from an edge part of the opening-part fabric in the size enough to cover the open fastener part, so as to raise the opening-part fabric into an upward direction and to open"; see Fig. 7; Col. 3 Lines 18-21 "open protective cover formed extended from an edge part of the opening-part fabric in the size enough to cover the open fastener part, so as to drop the opening-part fabric into a downward direction").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen’s ventilation opening to be oriented as recited as taught by Park especially as Park teaches the orientations interchangeably, depending on aesthetic design choice.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Sleesen (USPN 5704064), herein Sleesen, in view of Fathollahi et al (US Publication 2017/0245567), herein Fathollahi, as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of McAmish et al (USPN 6235659), herein McAmish.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Sleesen further teaches a mesh lining (see Fig. 2; Col. 6 Lines 64-65 "ventilation elements 210 are fabricated of a relatively non-stretchable air permeable sheet material")
the mesh lining being of a more porous and breathable material than the central gown body (see Fig. 2; Col. 6 Lines 64-65 "ventilation elements 210 are fabricated of a relatively non-stretchable air permeable sheet material"; for central gown body-- Col. 7 Lines 1-2 "front panels 106 are constructed of leather or vinyl"; Col. 7 Lines 1-2 "front panels 106 are constructed of leather or vinyl, and ventilation elements 210 are constructed of perforated leather or vinyl"; wherein the material of mesh lining has perforations and therefore is more porous and breathable).
Sleesen does not explicitly teach the mesh lining being of a more porous and breathable material than the pair of opposing left and right sleeves.
McAmish teaches that the central gown body and sleeves are of the same material (see Fig. 1; Col. 3 Lines 23-29 "gown 10..comprises a body 12 having a front portion 14 and back portion 16 and a pair of sleeves 18...formed of a suitable nonwoven material to provide a disposable gown; however, a reusable fabric such as cotton, polyester and blends thereof may also be employed").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen’s arms 104 to be of the same material of central gown body/front panels 106 for easier manufacturing, thereby meeting the missing recitation.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 6.
Sleesen further teaches wherein the ventilation cape covers at least some of the mesh lining (Col. 7 Lines 1-2 "front panels 106 are constructed of leather or vinyl, and ventilation elements 210 are constructed of perforated leather or vinyl"; even if same material, clearly more breathable material with the vents; different STRUCTURE in the material).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 7.
Sleesen further teaches wherein the mesh lining is provided on other portions of the back panel beyond the ventilation opening (see Figs. 1, 4 for symmetrical mesh lining).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 7.
Sleesen further teaches wherein a width of the ventilation cape at the ventilation opening is wider than the mesh lining arranged at the ventilation opening (see Fig. 4; Col. 7 Line 54 "cover panels 410 are larger").
Sleesen at least suggests thereby blousing the ventilation cape to allow the ventilation cape to hang loose and open for increased ventilation flow (Col. 7 Lines 9-12 "Cover panel 110 may be retracted simply by rolling the fabric of the panel upon itself, or alternatively, the folded panel may be tucked into a specially provided lower pocket 214"; Sleesen teaches the wherein a width of the ventilation cape at the ventilation opening is wider than the mesh lining arranged at the ventilation opening which meets the structural limitations in the claims and therefore performs the blousing as recited, especially in light of the recitation, and especially as it is known in the art that such materials are capable of the blousing recited, see extrinsic evidence van der Sleesen USPN 6070274).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Sleesen (USPN 5704064), herein Sleesen, in view of Fathollahi et al (US Publication 2017/0245567), herein Fathollahi, and McAmish et al (USPN 6235659), herein McAmish, as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Golde (USPN 7017191).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 6.
Sleesen does not explicitly teach wherein a material or materials defining the mesh lining is configured to meet snagging resistance performance metrics defined under ASTM D 3939-13 and under ASTM D 5362-13.
However, Sleesen already taught that the mesh lining (210) was perforate leather (Col. 7 Lines 1-2).
Golde teaches wherein perforate leather and knit mesh are interchangeable (see Fig. 10; Col. 7 Lines 27-29 "panel 46 may be made of perforate leather, or may be made of a woven or knitted material having a sufficiently open mesh as to allow air to permeate therethrough").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen’s mesh lining of perforate leather to be of knit mesh as taught by Golde as a simple substitution of one air permeable material for another (Col. 7 Lines 27-29).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen’s mesh lining of knit mesh, provided by Golde, to be configured to meet snagging resistance performance metrics defined under ASTM D 3939-13 and under ASTM D 5362-13, as a well known standard in the art, to perform to desired levels of use.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Sleesen (USPN 5704064), herein Sleesen, in view of Fathollahi et al (US Publication 2017/0245567), herein Fathollahi, as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Wong (US Publication 2012/0246802) and Braun (USPN 7171695).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Sleesen further teaches wherein the central gown body includes a top end and a bottom end opposite the top end (see Fig. 4),
with the neck opening being positioned proximate to the top end (see Fig. 4).
Sleesen does not explicitly teach wherein the central gown body further comprises angled hems at the bottom end.
Wong teaches a central body further comprising hems at the bottom end (see Fig. 23; abstract "bottom hem (223) of a shirt"; [0118] "for jacket edges to be reinforced include...hem bottom").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen’s bottom ends with hems as taught by Wong to impede wear of edge ([0001]) via reinforcement ([0118]).
Braun teaches a central body further comprising angled bottom ends (see Fig. 1, 2; Col. 2 Lines 43-44 "back section 46" is longer than the front of the Col. 2 Line 32 "torso portion 14", thereby providing angled bottom ends).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen’s bottom ends to be angled as taught by Braun as a known structure for effective ventilation (see abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Modified Sleesen further teaches wherein the angled hems are formed in front panel and the back panel (see Braun Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Modified Sleesen further teaches wherein the angled hems are formed at opposite sides of the central gown body (see Braun Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Sleesen (USPN 5704064), herein Sleesen, in view of Fathollahi et al (US Publication 2017/0245567), herein Fathollahi, as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Blanco (US Publication 2023/0292849).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Sleesen does not explicitly teach wherein at least some portions of the central body and/or at least some portions of the pair of opposite left and right sleeves comprises electrostatic dissipative or anti-static yarns.
Blanco teaches wherein at least some portions of the central body and/or at least some portions of the pair of opposite left and right sleeves comprises electrostatic dissipative or anti-static yarns (abstract "lint and static electricity resistant shirt...shirt is made from a special weave of polyester and carbon fibers"; [0009] "weave of the cloth is 95%-98% polyester and 2%-5% carbon fiber", wherein woven fibers indicates yarns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least Sleesen’s central body with the anti-static yarns of Blanco to limit lint buildup ([0006]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Sleesen (USPN 5704064), herein Sleesen, in view of Fathollahi et al (US Publication 2017/0245567), herein Fathollahi, as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Jascomb (USPN 11576449).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Sleesen does not explicitly teach wherein the neck opening defines a V-shaped collar.
Jascomb teaches wherein the neck opening defines a V-shaped collar (Col. 6 Lines 45-49 "v-neck shape of the collar forms an angle …results in a gown that …can still dissipate heat and humidity").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen’s neck opening to be the V-shape collar as taught by Jascomb in order to effectively dissipate heat and humidity (Col. 6 Lines 45-49), which Sleesen desires as well (title).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Sleesen (USPN 5704064), herein Sleesen, in view of Fathollahi et al (US Publication 2017/0245567), herein Fathollahi, as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Bell (US Publication 2022/0192293).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Sleesen does not explicitly teach a pair of pull loops connected to the central gown body along opposite sides of a waist region of the wearer and along connections of the front panel to the back panel,
wherein the pull loops are sized and positioned to be configured to receive or be configured to be grasped by one or more fingers of hands to thereby provide convenient gripping locations to apply a doffing force to open and remove the protective gown,
the convenient gripping locations also being positioned away from portions of the protective gown along the front panel most likely to be soiled during use by the wearer.
Bell teaches a pair of pull loops connected to the central gown body along opposite sides of a waist region of the wearer and along connections of the front panel to the back panel (see Fig. 2; [0028] "Fig. 2 is a rear view of a…garment"; [0032] "handle/loop 18 is disposed approximately midway along the longitudinal seams 20 along each side of the garment 10 proximate to upper portion of the wearer's hips. Preferably, the loop/handles 18 are integrated with the seams 20 and attached to the jumper garment 10 along seam 20 at two spaced points", wherein seams 20 are the connections; Bell teaches the loops which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for pull and along a waist region of a wearer),
wherein the pull loops are sized and positioned to be configured to receive or be configured to be grasped by one or more fingers of hands to thereby provide convenient gripping locations to apply a doffing force to open and remove the protective gown (see abstract; Bell teaches the pull loops with size and position which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being grasped as convenient gripping locations to apply a doffing force to open and remove the gown as recited; see claim interpretation for the term “convenient”),
the convenient gripping locations also being positioned away from portions of the protective gown along the front panel most likely to be soiled during use by the wearer (Bell teaches the loops at the convenient location which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being away from the portions recited).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen with the pull loops of Bell to assist with donning and doffing (abstract).
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Sleesen (USPN 5704064), herein Sleesen, in view of Fathollahi et al (US Publication 2017/0245567), herein Fathollahi, and Bell (US Publication 2022/0192293), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Carpenter et al (USPN 5950240), herein Carpenter.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Modified Sleesen does not explicitly teach wherein each of the pull loops is formed from a material having a different color from a material defining the central gown body to guide a person to the gripping locations where doffing forces should be applied to remove the protective gown.
Carpenter teaches wherein each of the pull loops is formed from a material having a different color from a material defining the garment to guide a person to a location (Col. 4 Lines 8-13 "bar tack or other concentrated stitches are employed on the exterior and interior of the sleeve to fix the loop to the jacket cuff, preventing inadvertent tearing or pulling out of the loop. A red or other bright color loop may be used which contrasts against the color of the cuff to ensure the loop is readily visible to the user", wherein contrast indicates different; see Fig. 1; Col. 3 Line 10 "loop 22 may be formed from a flexible, resilient cord"; abstract "loop, securely retaining the unworn glove to the jacket").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen’s loops to be a different color from elsewhere in the garment, such as the central gown body, as taught by Carpenter, in order to provide visibility (Col. 4 Lines 8-13).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Sleesen teaches wherein the different color to guide a person to the gripping locations where doffing forces should be applied to remove the protective gown (modified Sleesen teaches the different color and the loops at gripping locations for doffing as established in Claim 16 which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of guiding a person to doffing force gripping locations).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Sleesen teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 17.
Modified Sleesen further teaches wherein at least a portion of each of the pull loops is orange or red in color (see Carpenter Col. 4 Lines 8-13).
Modified Sleesen does not explicitly teach and at least a portion of the central gown body is green in color.
However, it has been held that claim limitations to ornamentation which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 and In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen such that at least a portion of the central gown body is green for aesthetic design choice, especially as such a color for at least a portion of a garment is known in the art (see extrinsic evidence Bayer USPN 6345393), and especially as modified Sleesen desires a color contrasting from red for the rest of the garment.
THIRD REJECTION: Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Sleesen (USPN 5704064), herein Sleesen, in view of Park et al (USPN 8256023), herein Park, and Fathollahi et al (US Publication 2017/0245567), herein Fathollahi.
Regarding Claim 20, Sleesen teaches a rear-opening protective gown defining a personal protective equipment garment (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; nevertheless, see Fig. 4, wherein Fig. 4 is the embodiment utilized; although recitations may be directed to a different embodiment, such as Figs. 1-3, it is understood that Fig. 4 having the same numerals and concepts as recited for Figs. 1-3 as applicable would also have the recitations apply to Fig. 4, especially in light of Col. 7 Lines 49-53 "Fig. 4 shows a front view of another embodiment of a garment 400...generally similar to the garment 100 shown in Figs. 1 and 2, and corresponding elements are identified with the same reference designations in Figs. 1, 2, and 4"; as such, see Fig. 1; Col. 6 Lines 27-28 "jacket 100 is equipped with a central zipper 102", wherein rear is relative and merely a matter of perspective; Sleesen teaches a garment with an opening which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being rear-opening, protective, and personal equipment gown, inasmuch as the structure of a gown has been defined), the protective gown comprising:
a central gown body having a top end and a bottom end (see Fig. 4), and being
sized to wrap around at least a torso area of a wearer (see Fig. 1; Sleesen teaches a central gown body which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being sized to wrap at least a torso as recited),
the central gown body including a front panel and a back panel (see Figs. 1, 3; Col. 5 Line 30 "Fig. 3 shows a rear view of the jacket of Fig. 1"; Col. 5 Line 26 "Fig. 1 shows a front view", wherein front/back are relative and a matter of perspective),
with the back panel being separated into a right portion and a left portion such that the protective gown opens at the back panel (see Fig. 1),
wherein one of the right portion and left portion includes an overlapping section (wherein zipper teeth overlap one another),
and the other of the right portion and left portion includes a corresponding overlapped section (met by the zipper),
the overlapping section and overlapped section being configured to lay over one another when the protective gown is donned by the wearer and closed (Sleesen teaches the zipper which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of the lay over when gown is donned and closed),
a ventilation cape formed by a ventilation opening in the central gown body (see Fig. 1; Col. 6 Lines 31-33 "cover panels or elements 110 are affixed to front panels 106 to adjustably overlie portions of the openings 108"),
wherein the ventilation opening is formed in the overlapping section of the back panel (wherein the overlapping section is the symmetrical/right side of the back panel),
wherein the ventilation opening is closer to the top end than the bottom end (see Fig. 4, wherein at least a portion of the opening is closer to the top than the bottom),
stitching that secures the ventilation cape to the right portion of the back panel (Col. 6 Lines 39-41 "cover panel 110 is stitched or otherwise permanently affixed to front panel 106 along edge 112"),
wherein the stitching at least partially secures the ventilation opening closed and forms a joint between the ventilation cape and the back panel (Col. 6 Lines 39-41 "cover panel 110 is stitched or otherwise permanently affixed to front panel 106 along edge 112");
a mesh lining being of a more porous and breathable material than the central gown body (see Fig. 2; Col. 6 Lines 64-65 "ventilation elements 210 are fabricated of a relatively non-stretchable air permeable sheet material"; for central gown body-- Col. 7 Lines 1-2 "front panels 106 are constructed of leather or vinyl"; Col. 7 Lines 1-2 "front panels 106 are constructed of leather or vinyl, and ventilation elements 210 are constructed of perforated leather or vinyl"; wherein the material of mesh lining has perforations and therefore is more porous and breathable),
wherein the overlapping section includes at least some of the mesh lining arranged underneath the ventilation cape (see Fig. 4, right side/overlapping section having mesh lining/ventilation elements 210 under the cape/cover panel 110),
such that the mesh lining allows for air to pass between an interior and an exterior of the gown (Sleesen teaches the mesh lining which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of allowing air to pass, especially in light of the recitations)
while the ventilation cape provides a barrier covering for the mesh lining to provide splash protection in an area of the ventilation opening (Sleesen teaches the ventilation cape covering the mesh lining which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being a barrier to provide splash protection in the area as recited);
and wherein the mesh lining is also provided on at least some portion of the overlapped section (see Fig. 4 for the symmetrical mesh lining 210 on the left/overlapped section);
wherein a width of the ventilation cape at the ventilation opening is wider than the mesh lining arranged at the ventilation opening (see Fig. 4; Col. 7 Line 54 "cover panels 410 are larger");
a pair of opposing left and right sleeves that cooperate with and extend away from the central gown body for receiving arms of the wearer (see Fig. 1; Col. 6 Line 28 "arms 104"; Sleesen teaches the sleeves/arms which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of receiving wearer arms);
a neck opening defined by the central gown body adjacent a shoulder region of the central gown body located proximate a junction of the left and right sleeves with the central gown body (see Fig. 1); and
wherein the neck opening is positioned proximate to the top end (see Fig. 4); and
a plurality of fastening elements positioned on or proximate to the back panel and configured to permit doffing of the gown (Col. 6 Lines 48-50 "zippers 120…adjustably couple cover panel 110 to front panel 106"; Sleesen teaches the zipper teeth as plurality of fastening elements which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of permitting doffing).
Sleesen at least suggests the width thereby blousing the ventilation cape to allow the ventilation cape to hang loose and open for increased ventilation flow (Col. 7 Lines 9-12 "Cover panel 110 may be retracted simply by rolling the fabric of the panel upon itself, or alternatively, the folded panel may be tucked into a specially provided lower pocket 214"; Sleesen teaches the wherein a width of the ventilation cape at the ventilation opening is wider than the mesh lining arranged at the ventilation opening which meets the structural limitations in the claims and therefore performs the blousing as recited, especially in light of the recitation, and especially as it is known in the art that such materials are capable of the blousing recited, see extrinsic evidence van der Sleesen USPN 6070274).
Sleesen does not explicitly teach and wherein the ventilation opening is oriented to face downwards towards the bottom end (but teaches the opposite).
Park teaches and wherein the ventilation opening is oriented to face downwards towards the bottom end (as another option to the opposite) (see Fig. 3; Col. 2 Lines 54-57 "open protective cover formed extended from an edge part of the opening-part fabric in the size enough to cover the open fastener part, so as to raise the opening-part fabric into an upward direction and to open"; see Fig. 7; Col. 3 Lines 18-21 "open protective cover formed extended from an edge part of the opening-part fabric in the size enough to cover the open fastener part, so as to drop the opening-part fabric into a downward direction").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen’s ventilation opening to be oriented as recited as taught by Park especially as Park teaches the orientations interchangeably, depending on aesthetic design choice.
Sleesen does not explicitly teach that the stitching is a bar tack.
Fathollahi teaches bar tack stitching ([0008] "jacket is comprised of a front right panel, a front left panel, and back panel. The panels…may be unitarily formed or bonded together, such as by stitching…and stitched elements may include single or multiple lines of stitching, bar tack stitches for improved strength").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sleesen’s stitching to be bar tack as taught by Fathollahi as a known type of stitching to provide strength ([0008]), especially for various garment panels/elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to remarks on page 14 for Claim 19 that there is a difference between a protective gown of the instant application and the motorcycle jacket of Sleesen—examiner respectfully disagrees. Inasmuch as the structure of a gown has been defined by the claims, the jacket of Sleesen (herein van der Sleesen USPN 5704064 unless otherwise indicated) meets the recitations, including being capable of being personal and protective. Remarks seems to desire a narrower interpretation of the term “protective gown” than is currently required by the claims.
Pertaining to remarks on page 14 for Claim 19 that the overlapping and overlapped sections shown as panels of material in the instant application cannot be fairly read on zipper teeth engagements of Sleesen—examiner respectfully disagrees. The zipper teeth are of the material panels and overlap due to interlocking, which meets the claims under broadest reasonable interpretation. Examiner notes that the claims can be read in light of the specification to help disclose what is included within broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, but that limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969), MPEP 2111. No other statements have been provided herein for Claim 19 to expound on the remarks. However, see also examiner response to related remarks on page 18 of the remarks.
Pertaining to remarks on page 15 for Claim 19 that airflow and coverage are mutually exclusive states—examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments are functional. Inasmuch as the structure is capable of the functionality, the prior art meets the functions. Even if Sleesen only explicitly discloses two states, Sleesen is capable of intermediate states meeting the functional recitations. No evidence has been provided otherwise that Sleesen is not capable of intermediate states. As remarks themselves indicate on page 15, the garment vents when the cover panel is open—as such, any partial opening provides venting. Similarly as the remarks themselves indicate, any partial closing provides covering. As such, such states being “mutually exclusive” is untrue.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 for Claim 1 that the strength rationale for combining Fathollahi with Sleesen is not pertinent to Sleesen or the present invention, and the differing garment types provide no reason to combine—examiner respectfully disagrees, and attention is directed to pages 9, 10 of the office action of 2/4/26. Fathollahi is pertinent to Sleesen as being in the same art of endeavor as garment stitching, especially for jackets. Fathollahi is clearly pertinent to the present invention as being directed to stitching as bar tacks. There is no evidence of Sleesen teaching away from Sleesen’s stitching being specifically bar tack stitching as taught by Fathollahi. Sleesen is only being modified to state that its stitching type is specifically that of bar tack stitching as taught by Fathollahi.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 for Claim 1 that Fathollahi’s electronics-enhancement teaching is not related to Sleesen’s ventilation jacket—examiner respectfully disagrees, and reiterates as aforementioned, that the references are in the same art of endeavor as garment stitching, especially for jackets, as indicated in the office action as aforementioned.
Pertaining to remarks on page 17 as to impermissible hindsight—examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Pertaining to remarks on pages 17, 18 for Claim 1 that Sleesen elements are not a unified configuration as required by independent claim 1 and require modifying Sleesen to consolidate into a single, co-located structure and modify Sleesen to be reconfigured according to the claims-- examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not quite understood how the remarks have misconstrued the rejection such that modification of Sleesen by itself is being concluded. Nevertheless, it is noted that no modification of Sleesen with itself for alleged reconfiguration is in the examiner rejections. Inasmuch as Sleesen is of a same invention, the elements are unified and a single, co-located structure. Inasmuch as the limitations have currently been claimed, Sleesen (or modified Sleesen) meets all of the recitations. Furthermore, claims are comprising claims, and allow elements to be within the same invention without all being directly attached. Claims do not yet require direct attachment of all elements, let alone having support for such an arrangement. Should remarks have a specific structural definition in mind for “unified”, claims should be amended to reflect as such, as currently claims are met under broadest reasonable interpretation. See aforementioned, where the specification is not read into the claims.
Pertaining to remarks on page 18 for Claim 1 that a zipper fastener is distinct from a back panel divided into two independently moveable fabric portions that lay flat over one another to close the garment—examiner respectfully disagrees, in addition to the previous response addressing related remarks on page 14 of the remarks. Based on how the limitations are currently claimed, the zipper is a portion of each panels, even if the panels were amended to be of fabric. And each complementary zipper has teeth that interlock as remarks themselves on page 18 indicate, which indicates overlapping. Interlocking indicates laying over one another, as it is a matter of perspective/axial viewpoint. Remarks desire a narrower interpretation of overlapping than is currently required by the claims.
Pertaining to remarks on page 18 for Claim 1 that Fathollahi teaches a zipper and not a bar tack—examiner respectfully disagrees. Remarks misconstrue the rejection. Sleesen clearly teaches stitching as indicated on page 9 of the office action of 2/4/26, and again on page 10 of the same office action. Sleesen merely does not teach that the stitching is specifically bar tack type, which Fathollahi teaches. Even if Sleesen discloses zipper fastening elsewhere, the modification is clearly of the stitching. The claims are comprising claims, and allow for both fasteners to exist.
Pertaining to remarks on page 18 for Claim 1 that Fathollahi is not a bar tack used in the specific functional role claimed here and therefore cannot be used—examiner respectfully disagrees. The remarks are piecemeal—the functional role is already taught by Sleesen, which includes the stitching. Fathollahi is merely to teach that the specific type of stitching is bar tack, known to be used for strength, in the same art of endeavor as garment stitching, especially for jackets, as indicated in the office action as aforementioned. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Pertaining to remarks on page 19 for Claim 1 that Sleesen has airflow and coverage in mutually exclusive states and therefore does not teach the new amendments—examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons similarly aforementioned for Claim 19, page 15 of remarks.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 pertaining to Claim 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pertaining to remarks on page 20 for Claim 20 that there is no overlapping section and bar tack—examiner respectfully disagrees and directs attention to related responses herein to related remarks.
Pertaining to remarks on page 20 for Claim 20 that the limitation of “while” in Claim 20 is not taught as there is no simultaneous venting-and-protection arrangement as the airflow and coverage are mutually exclusive—examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons and directs attention to related responses herein to related remarks. Furthermore, examiner notes that the term “while” under broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the term to be so narrowly construed as to mean “simultaneous”. The term “while” is met inasmuch as both functions exist within the structure, and does not require the functions to exist simultaneously. Even if the claim were amended such that the functions were simultaneous such as for Claim 1 and Claim 19, the amendments would still not persuasively overcome the prior art of record for reasons aforementioned for similar remarks. The amendment would be functional, and is capable with the structures taught.
Pertaining to remarks on page 21 for Claim 20 that blousing is not taught, as blousing refers to a passive structural condition resulting from the dimensional relationship between the ventilation cape and the underlying mesh lining (in combination with the bar tack connection):-- examiner respectfully disagrees. No such explicit definition for the term “blousing” was in the original disclosure. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, see extrinsic evidence Dictionary non-patent literature (NPL) for blousing only being required to be “to hang or cause to hang loosely and fully”; remarks have not addressed the actual rejection of the term, wherein blousing is functional based on the width, wherein Sleesen’s width is capable of blousing, especially based Sleesen’s material of the width already capable of rolling/tucking and therefore blousing, further supported by extrinsic evidence Sleesen USPN 6070274 which clearly shows blousing, all indicated on page 25 of the office action of 2/4/26, such blousing being as interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation indicated in the NPL. No evidence has been provided that Sleesen, especially being able to roll/tuck, does not indicate physical properties that would make blousing functionally impossible.
Pertaining to remarks on pages 21, 22 for Claim 20 that there is no motivation or articulated reason to combine Sleesen with Park – examiner respectfully disagrees. Page 26 of the office action of 2/4/26 indicates the motivation and articulated reason to combine—that Sleesen already teaches one orientation (page 25 of the office action), and Park teaches the same orientation and the orientation claimed, such orientations being interchangeable for aesthetic design choice. Sleesen already teaches all of the structure, and capable of such orientations, especially in light of Park.
In conclusion: amendments should structurally differentiate the claims from the prior art of record which will more likely effectively move the case forward than amending functionally. Especially as remarks seem to desire a narrower interpretation of claim terms, limitations should be amended to include the structure that remarks believe are related to the terms.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Justice (USPN 12520891) directed to overlapping first/second flaps with a ventilation cape; Boutiller (FR 1145808) directed to ventilation cape.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights